|
Before going to other issues concerning the proposed DGR, we should look
at an example of the individuals working on it and what they do. World-wide there
are a variety of people doing basic research relative to Deep
Geologic
Repositories. (DGR)
Most researchers fall into the following categories:
Many of professors serve as paid consultants
to the nuclear power industry or to governments, who want to have
the broadest and best science. This is not surprising as they need money to
do the basic research.
-
Industry researchers who work for private companies.
-
Government employees world-wide who concentrate on
nuclear power and waste management.
-
Researchers who do consulting for special interest
groups, who oppose either nuclear power in general or DGRs in
particular. They also need funds to compensate for their time
and travel costs.
-
Key specialists who have something to contribute in
scientific or engineering areas. These people are brought in
as consultants to all of the above, where needed. They usually
are engaged because they have special expertise in a very narrow
areas.
It's interesting to see how Canada is approaching the issue and how
other countries are too. The history and science of DGRs goes back
decades There is much in common across countries, but some
differences in terms of timing and the political and social impact
strategies invoked.
There seems to be total transparency of communication between nations
who are doing the research. Nothing seems to be secret in terms of
the science, except security precautions and even these are revealed on
a need to know basis.
Most countries are concerned with the security of above ground storage
for long term safety as well as DGR security.
In doing the reading on the Copper Canisters proposed for the Finnish DGR, I found a paper by Dr. R. C. Newman from the University of Toronto.
He seems typical of the serious researchers involved.
It's an in-depth look at corrosion and cracking in copper containers.
It's a long article intended for the scientific community. You can
see what it's all about by
clicking here. It's worth a look.
It's a good example. It shows how the scientific method works as he
answers some questions by others relative to the past and new research
and conclusions that he has drawn.
Details are not without
different opinions. Newman and his co-author answer questions point by
point. It's in a very technical area and deep into the specific research
on copper. It's intended for his peers and not for special
interest community based groups.
Lay people can understand his conclusions, but to delve into the
intricacies of the research is difficult for the non-expert person or
even for the general experts, because his area is certainly special.
The DGR administrators have to make sure that the scientific method is
working and qualified peers are reviewing results. You can see
this going on in Newman's work.
As you read the research, you have to be impressed with the
credentials of people like Dr. Newman. Here is his brief
educational background.
 R.C.
Newman
MA, PhD (Cambridge), DSc, CEng, FIMMM, FNACE, FICorr
(Hon)
NSERC-UNENE Senior Industrial Research Chair in
Corrosion and Materials Performance in Nuclear Power Systems
For more go to his web site by
clicking here. It's very impressive
It's possible to look at the issue from many sides. The more I
read, the more I'm convinced that the science and engineering are in
capable hands. The real issues reside in the social sphere.
It appears that all the organizations concerned seriously with DGRs hold
that opinion and want to work with interested communities as their technical work continues.
I can't believe how much literature there is on all aspects of DGRs.
It would take at least a year to read the most important research papers
on the subject. Most people can't do that, I know I can't. I
can put a dent in it by reading something every day. I won't last a year
on the review. Where risk
management is concerned, I can go deeper.
The social bridge is the most important issue right now. Although
it seems like the easy part, it is by far the most complicated and it
has stalled information transfer to the general public.
There is much to learn about that aspect.
Click here for a somewhat dated, but good survey-summary article
about DGRs including social acceptance importance.
This is an excellent summary and does not require any special knowledge
in science. The graphs and any formulas are crucial to the
narrative. It shows the cycle clearly. That's its main use.
What have I learned or what has been reinforced by reading the two
articles?
1. There are very good people working in the area of DGR research
in specialized areas. (Dr.
Newman's Bio)
2. Normal Scientific Methods are being used with peer review.
This involves back and forth interplay. (go
to page 18 to see how normal peer review works or to the conclusion to
see how it works
You will see how Newman answers some issues. This
goes on all the time. It's not like scientists are arguing, they
are presenting results and correcting things in the peer review process.
There is a constant back and forth until things are established.
Newman's paper was done for Sweden's proposed DGR, but applies in
general within the geologic parameters.
It's impossible for the lay person to keep up or follow these
developments. That's up to the experts. Therein is the
problem. How to communicate all this material? How to have
it
assimilated?
3. The social issues are far behind the science.
4. Some areas like DGR canisters and the metallurgy therein are
very complicated and have to be left to select experts with the right
credentials and competent organizations.
The process of peer review has been healthy and has been going on for
more than three decades. This has been insulated from the social
issues, somewhat. This accounts for much of the progress and lack of
progress to
date.
You can follow the chain of copper and other materials for DGR
containers by following the trail of the research. It is
extensive. You cannot just dive in a quote an author without
following the time stamped peer review process that is flowing and
ongoing all the time. Experts like Newman don't get hired because they
will dredge up results that their employer wants to hear. They
have international reputations and are paid for their knowledge.
For now, I've had enough about pH levels and corrosion
patinas for copper.
I've concluded that copper seems to be well chosen given the proper
ambient conditions. If you have some doubts, then go and ask a
person like Dr. Newman. He's in Toronto. Is there something
better? I have no idea.
 |
for
world news,
books, sports, movies ...
